Markoul11

@paulina All the extra states not predicted classically are artificial caused by the measurement apparatus and the measurement problem in quantum experiments in general and not native to the original undisturbed quantum system. I believe many of the weird concepts of the micro-world described by QM like superposition, non-locality, non-determinism are actually artifacts of the theory and not physical.

What are the new predictions and new breakthrough discoveries over the last 40 years with the exception of the Higgs Boson? For me this is a clear indication that the theory is dead.

Let's start with superposition, entanglement, and non-determinism. A different foundations theory is needed youtube.com/watch?v=fXzO_KAqrh0

@WillO Quantum mechanics is a mathematical framework that models observations. While effective, it doesn't always provide intuitive insights into the nature of reality, leading to interpretations (like the Copenhagen interpretation or many-worlds) that can seem "weird."

If we assume neutrinos to be Majorana fermions then they must be also their own antiparticles similar to photons therefore by definition neutrinos must obey a 2π spinor symmetry and not the 4π.

I am not saying it is actually a Boson but a peculiar spin-1/2, 2π-symmetry fermion. It just happens to share the same 2π-symmetry characteristic photons have.

@RootGroves quote: "...maybe neutrinos are Majorana particles?" It's the same question herein rephrased. IMO a Majorana fermion must have a 2π-symmetry similar to photons (Bosons)

@RootGroves I am currently doing theoretical work showing a possible correlation of neutrinos being found to be always left-handed with 4π-symmetry breaking,

I can see the theoretical reasons of why it is believed that neutrinos obey the so called Fermi-Dirac Statistics model but I have a difficulty to find experiment references? In any case neutrinos have proved to be strange particles with unique properties differentiating them from other SM particles like neutrino oscillations. It would no surprise me to find that they brake the 4π-symmetry.

Yes, maybe the 4π-symmetry for fermions breaks down in some case?

@Andrew You assume that spin-1/2 necessarily always obeys Dirac 4π-symmetry and vice versa. But this was never confirmed by experiment that this symmetry holds also for the elementary neutrino.

I am not so sure about that since this as far as I know was never confirmed by experiment. Theoretically, this could be tested on any fermion by experiment since neutrinos have a tiny intrinsic magnetic dipole moment so they can be rotated in the lab frame using Larmor precession under an external magnetic field but I don't believe a neutrino can ever be trapped to perform this type of experiment similar to neutron interferometry used for measuring the 4π-symmetry of electrons.

That;s ridiculous. "The question was closed because it is not a physics question within the scope of PSE!!" But its is all about physics! Probably hit a nerve on the scale marketing business who sale these scales as application for measuring valuable stuff.

@EdV I agree, a differential measurement method (i.e. balance) is superior because it rejects systematic errors.

@DavidBailey A balance will show the same reading for an object even if you go to the moon. W=mg where g is the planetary gravitational acceleration constant at which you are taking the measurement. A balance will correctly show the same mass of the object interdependent of where you are the moon or the Earth. Using a spring scale on the moon will report the gold to weight about 1/6 of the weight on Earth. Balance measures invariant rest mass m, scales measure weight $W=mg$ which g varies on Earth per latitude due to centrifugal forces effectively (Earth's spin) changing g.

@DavidBailey Unless the scale cannot be digital calibrated for latitude position each time calibration weights will do you no good since they are also subject of the same centrifugal forces per latitude. The Earth at the equator spins at around 1000 miles/hour and an object weights about -0.3% less at the equator than at the poles with intermediate values existing in between, Usually is not a problem but for a relative large quantity of gold this can make quite a lot of difference in money value.

@Diracology I suggest to you to give your comment as regular answer to this question thread. Also keep in mind except the very small almost negligible local variations of g=9.81 m/s^2 nominal value with altitude from sea level and some dense large land masses (i.e. large mountain mass nearby) the largest contributor to the variation of g is the spin of the Earth and centrifugal force about 1000 miles per hour at the equator. An object weights about -0.3% less at the equator than at the poles.

@EdV I don't think this answers my question. I don't think it is a matter of precision but actually what a balance measures and a scale does not?

@nielsnielsen So, due to spin of the Earth and centrifugal forces created, the weight of an object can vary between the poles and Equator of the Earth up to 0.3%, this usually is not a problem but for a relative large quantity of gold this can make quite a lot of difference in money value.

@nielsnielsen A balance will show the same reading for an object even if you go to the moon. $W=mg$ where g is the planetary gravitational acceleration constant at which you are taking the measurement. A balance will correctly show the same mass of the object interdependent of where you are the moon or the Earth. Using a spring scale on the moon will report the gold to weight about 1/6 of the weight on Earth. Turns, out gold dealers using the balance instead the scale because objects at the equator are weighting about -0.3% less than at the poles because large centrifugal force 1600 km/h.

@nielsnielsen No they are not! A balance measures mass, a typical spring scale measures weight.

I don't think this answers my question. I don't think it is a matter of precision or trustworthiness but actually what a balance measures and a scale does not? It is a physics question.

Also the counterarguements about Dragan's-Ekert work, iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/acae3b

Here wired.co.uk/article/quantum-theory-speed-light-dragan an interesting article about Dragan's-Ekert's groundbreaking theoretical results.

Also read this interesting discusion about Dragan and Ekert's older groundbreaking work on superluminocity quora.com/…

This is paper about Superluminality "Relativity of superluminal observers in 1 + 3 spacetime" is now trending in Almetric and steered the science community iopscience.iop.org/journal/0264-9381

Very important new research showing how extending Relativity with Superluminocity inavoidable results to Quantum Field Theory! iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acad60 This research should not be taken lightly.

Assuming DM exists but we cannot detect using our established theories then it is logical also to be open to the possibility that DM does not entirely obey our known physics and new physics must be found. It would be wise after all attempts failed (which it seems so for DM for the last 30 years) to rather theorize new physics.

My answer is now farther edited giving additional information.

@FlatterMann Initial calculation was by mistake wrong giving wrong conclusions in my answer. This now has been corrected in my answer to only 11 bps for a 5000Km interatlantic sea submerged cable case. This ideal value is now much closer the actual and I believe the presented in the reference estimation has practical merits.

Keep in mind that a multi-threaded for example 2cm radius wire cable has much more total surface area than a single core 2cm one, therefore reduced skin effect for high speed transmission and therefore also a higher bit rate capacity.

@FlatterMann I agree. But they used the term "ideal" which differs from theoretical estimate which means also precise. Ideal means that we are allowed to do some assumptions often ignoring some practical physical parameters and draw some general conclusions. In that sense the analysis presented by these authors is not naive.

@EgeErdil IMHO I believe apart any power amplitude signal considerations the reference shows how ridiculously fundamental and practical impossible the high-speed transmission of binary information is at long intercontinental distances (modulated or not, repeated or not). If you need a 20cm diameter electrical cable to even come close to 57Mb/s imagine how gigantic it must be for GB/s transmission! That's is why optical communication prevailed.

@EgeErdil This bit-rate limit cable aspect ratio factor can be used ideally for the determination of the type of ideal minimum cable cross-section needed to meet a specific bit-rate needed as a first estimate. Also bare in mind for binary information 0 and 1 electric signals transmission via a wire a continuous sine wave modulation is used like FSK or PSK So rise time is not such important but the carrier signal frequency. A 10cm radius copper wire 5000Km long will have approximate a 2.7 ohms total resistance. Assuming a 100mA signal amplitude the dissipated RMS power on heat will be 27 mW.

@FlatterMann That's why the authors call it as ideal.

@EgeErdil The above estimate is presented in the reference as a fundamental limit for a line without repeaters.

More like a preprint. This is not a question. There are other sites and platforms for posting this type and seeking for a peer-review.

@WillO he hee LOL!

@WillO Thanks for taking the time to make a spacetime diagram, this is great! However, the problem this though experiment and paradox addresses is not relativity of simultaneity but a violation in causality and therefore an alteration of reality thus different events are observed. Assuming a very strong explosion the runner dies being both inside and outside the barn.

Thinks or sees?

@EricSmith I'm not sure if you understand the gravity of the situation here... A whole event is missing. The runner never experience entering the barn before the explosion!

@EricSmith According to SR, causality (i.e. succession of events) is absolute and cannot be violated. In this modified though experiment I've shown that different observers will experience a different reality. Runner sees himself outside the barn when explosion occurs and external observer (which is in the same inertial frame with barn) will see the runner inside the barn when explosion occurs. Causality is violated and this is not accepted in SR. Please read more thoroughly the thought experiment.